By "superior weaponry" playing a role in the conquest, are you referring to Russia's successful conquest of Afghanistan in the 1980, or to the United State's successful conquest of Afghanistan in the 2000's?
This seems to me to be a very disingenuous comparison and you're not responding to my question. Are you seriously arguing that superior weaponry doesn't help in a war? I think it's reasonably clear that the situation of the Aztecs differs to the conquest of Afghanistan not only by many hundreds of years.
I am not making the statement that all winning a war takes is superior weaponry, as your strawman would suggest. It doesn't take any one factor. Many factors add up. I'm saying this is one of them.
these conflicts cannot really be compared how you are comparing them. Also it should be noted that US lost 2,420 soldier in Afghanistan, probably 50 thousand or more Taliban died, and 200+ thousand civilians.. US may have not 'won' the war but Afghanistan sure did lose.
